[[email protected]]

I'd hate to see Usenet go because it has been around a long time.
However there are a multitude of Ham orientated and Amateur Radio
antenna groups within Yahoo Groups. Most of them are also moderated,
which means flame wars like this usually get extinguished pretty
quickly. 73 de David, VK2DMH.

[Robert Smits]

wrote:

I'd hate to see Usenet go because it has been around a long time.
However there are a multitude of Ham orientated and Amateur Radio
antenna groups within Yahoo Groups. Most of them are also moderated,
which means flame wars like this usually get extinguished pretty
quickly. 73 de David, VK2DMH.


No, thanks. Yahoo groups are NOT the same as Usenet or a reasonable
substitute for international newsgroups with nntp feeds. A better
alternative at the moment are alternate newsfeeds like giganews.


--
Bob Smits, Ladysmith, BC

"What a wonder is USENET; such wholesale production of conjecture from such
a trifling investment in fact." -- Carl S. Gutekunst

[John Smith]

Robert Smits wrote:



No, thanks. Yahoo groups are NOT the same as Usenet or a reasonable
substitute for international newsgroups with nntp feeds. A better
alternative at the moment are alternate newsfeeds like giganews.


--
Bob Smits, Ladysmith, BC

"What a wonder is USENET; such wholesale production of conjecture from such
a trifling investment in fact." -- Carl S. Gutekunst

Well said.

However the low bandwidth requirements of newsgroups should be included
in any decent ISPs' services, IMHO.

Regards,
JS

[[email protected]]

John Smith wrote:
Robert Smits wrote:



No, thanks. Yahoo groups are NOT the same as Usenet or a reasonable
substitute for international newsgroups with nntp feeds. A better
alternative at the moment are alternate newsfeeds like giganews.


--
Bob Smits, Ladysmith, BC

"What a wonder is USENET; such wholesale production of conjecture from such
a trifling investment in fact." -- Carl S. Gutekunst

Well said.

However the low bandwidth requirements of newsgroups should be included
in any decent ISPs' services, IMHO.

Low bandwidth my ass, a full USENET feed is gigabytes per day.

Know nothing fool.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[John Smith]

wrote:

...
Low bandwidth my ass, a full USENET feed is gigabytes per day.

Know nothing fool.




Perhaps a valid argument for those on dialup or with inadequate access
to the net.

Gigs ain't nothin', we move towards terabytes ... those thinking in gigs
are destined to the path of the dinosaur ...

Regards,
JS

[[email protected]]

John Smith wrote:
wrote:

...
Low bandwidth my ass, a full USENET feed is gigabytes per day.

Know nothing fool.




Perhaps a valid argument for those on dialup or with inadequate access
to the net.

Gigs ain't nothin', we move towards terabytes ... those thinking in gigs
are destined to the path of the dinosaur ...

A full T1 line is 1.5 megabits/sec.

The theoretical maximum bandwidth of DSL is 8 megabits/sec and you
will be lucky to get 6 megabits/sec.

A full USENET feed, one way, is about 130 GB day.

130 Gbytes X 8 bits = 1 X 10^12 bits.

1 X 10^12 bits / 6 X 10^6 bit/sec = 1.6 X 10^5 seconds = 46 hours.

So since there are only 24 hours in a day, you need the equivelant of
2 full, good DSL connections just to handle the incoming feed.

Add to the connections necessary for the outgoing feed.

And to store 30 days worth is 4 terabytes of storage.

As I said, know nothing fool.

BTW, how you can read my post when you've plonked me so many times?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[John Smith]

wrote:
John Smith wrote:
wrote:

...
Low bandwidth my ass, a full USENET feed is gigabytes per day.

Know nothing fool.




Perhaps a valid argument for those on dialup or with inadequate access
to the net.

Gigs ain't nothin', we move towards terabytes ... those thinking in gigs
are destined to the path of the dinosaur ...

A full T1 line is 1.5 megabits/sec.

The theoretical maximum bandwidth of DSL is 8 megabits/sec and you
will be lucky to get 6 megabits/sec.

A full USENET feed, one way, is about 130 GB day.

130 Gbytes X 8 bits = 1 X 10^12 bits.

1 X 10^12 bits / 6 X 10^6 bit/sec = 1.6 X 10^5 seconds = 46 hours.

So since there are only 24 hours in a day, you need the equivelant of
2 full, good DSL connections just to handle the incoming feed.

Add to the connections necessary for the outgoing feed.

And to store 30 days worth is 4 terabytes of storage.

As I said, know nothing fool.

BTW, how you can read my post when you've plonked me so many times?



Wow!!! If everyone was as you, you would be correct!

Unfortunately you either offer substandard ISP bandwidth, or you are an
idiot--now let me guess???? :-)

But hey, you add bytes of usage--maybe you will even find someone who
cares or believes you!! Good going man! BTW--are you from a 3rd world
country?

Regards,
JS

[John Smith]

Res wrote:
... 90% of internet users dont know what usenet is let alone
use it


MENSA is even worse, only 2% of the population are allowed membership ...

Gigs? Huh, you find that scary? A simple download of one CD is
generally around ~713 megabytes--on a decent feed this only takes a
matter of minutes ...

That is one problem which has plagued 99% of amateurs--small thinking.

Regards,
JS

[John Smith]

Res wrote:


and what do you propose we STORE it on? or do you rather ISP's only keep a
couple weeks news? We have news going back 5 years in most groups.
you do the maths since your huge brain is apparently better than us
amateurs.


The 750 gig hd in my laptop was unimaginable but a few short years ago
(not to mention, unfordable if possible--NOT today)... pause before
making rash statements--you can answer your own questions.

As I have mentioned, that way of thinking place you in "dinosaur danger!"

Regards,
JS

[John Smith]

Res wrote:
...
you do the maths since your huge brain is apparently better than us
amateurs.


BTW ... I AM an amateur, IDIOT!

But, you allude to the correct assumption, an amateur with a LARGE brain
is much preferred to the example you demonstrate.

Regards,
JS